If I recall correctly both predict the collapse of France, like clockwork, every few years (especially because French policies are slightly more socialist and both publications are super business).
And of course, both look down on non-Anglosphere countries, in general :-)
I don't know where you get that from. Any examples?
> You have to be aware of their biases, though.
A point of view is not a bias. The Economist was founded as a pro-market liberal (classically liberal) publication. A Marxist would consider that a bias I guess?
Because China is threatening the global order on which peace and prosperity lies, starting with the freedom of the seas.
China is already harassing and sinking fishing vessels and trying to close the South China Sea. It may soon try to enforce an ADIZ over the SC Sea as well. Not great.
China is a growing aggressive power with cyber attacks across a multitude of countries and is running, like Russia, disinformation campaigns to undermine democracy.
It is in the interest of EU and the US, and indeed many countries, to have a rules-based international order. It is increasingly in the interests of the US as its power is in relative decline.
> The US isn't the only potential ally against Chinese influence, why should Europe align itself with America instead of other countries?
Of course! All countries that value a rules-based order should ally, and that would include the EU, the US, India, Australia, and the many other smaller countries.
> Also, do you think there's no argument to be made for changing China's behaviour through a partnership?
Been tried. India was trying that by letting China have a stake in the economy. It hasn't ummmm worked out so well.
China uses the economy as a tool for its own political aims.
We all know this, but Europe has no trust in the US under Trump.
How can you not see that they are waiting till trust re-appears.
1 example: If Europe would really partner up, Trump would require Russia to be in the table ( G7). The current situation is nuts and it's not Europe's fault.
Ps. Trump has no interest in peace and prosperity. Haven't you been paying attention? The US has never been this divided and the current leader thinks tweeting is more important.
> Ps. Trump has no interest in peace and prosperity. Haven't you been paying attention? The US has never been this divided and the current leader thinks tweeting is more important.
Trump's only interest is re-election.
The US govt is a huge entity with may players of which the president is one, albeit an important one. The US military, State, academia and other institutions are all actors and they do have an interest in peace and prosperity.
Presidents come and go, but institutions remain and it is important that the relevant institutions adopt a common posture towards China.
> How can you not see that they are waiting till trust re-appears.
The EU cannot afford to wait that long. China isn't taking a pause on its aggression. Indeed, its exploiting the US under Trump, Covid, etc to move aggressively now.
> The current situation is nuts and it's not Europe's fault.
"fault"? It doesn't have to be your fault if the mess still ends on your lap. And Europe (and I'm a European) being neighbours with Eurasia doesnt have the luxury of huge oceans separating it from revanchist powers.
Trump is a moron - threatening to withdraw US troops out of Germany is a gift to Russia.
But the EU cannot wait for Trump to go away because if he wins reelection that could be 5 years away. We don't have that time. The EU needs to work with what its got - work with India, Australia, PacRim countries.
The problem is that the EU is itself split with different interests. Someone has to provide leadership. The US president is the natural option but Trump has not stepped up. Someone else needs to - it cannot be Merkel as she's stepping down soon, but we urgently need leadership on the issue.
The only sane option currently would be to exclude Trump.
But that would cause additional problems because of his ego and childish behaviour. So the best thing currently, is still too wait. It will happen if Trump gets re-elected.
It's not easy for someone new to step-up immediately as the so-called leader of Western democracy.
We all know that Obama and Merkel were potentials/it and Trump isn't. We'll c.
Ps. I think the current/best move to counter China already started. But it seems to bit below the radar currently.
How is it not Europe's fault? When it comes to digital businesses it's almost entirely Europe's fault. It's European countries that have been trying left and right to somehow squeeze more money out of largely American digital businesses. From the new digital taxes in France and Italy to the Google News row in Germany and Spain. This stuff started by Europe way before Trump ever entered the picture.
No, it's not European money at that point. It's the corporation's money, but that's beside the point. The point is that those companies tend to not have the same representation as the local companies do and that some of those governments are willing to use their rules to benefit those local companies, especially when it gets then extra revenue.
It's not like those European countries have a gun to their head. They can always just create their own Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Sony etc and stop using the products of foreign corporations. As a European, I personally very much like the services provided by these foreign corporations. I have many issues with them, but they are way better than (most of) the things I've seen made here.
> Interesting that you seem to have come to a conclusion that is basically the opposite of reality. The UK wants to have its cake (benefits of trade and travel ties) and eat it too
It is standard negotiating OP by both sides. Just take a look at the Troika / Greece negotiations: breakthroughs come at the very last minute.
Extending the transition period merely lengthens the phoney negotiations.
> There is no exit that puts the UK in a better position because it imagines itself to have power and influence that it does not possess.
Viewed through an economic lens, Brexit will do damadge, certainly in the short term. Medium to long term depends on whether the Tories learn drop austerity and to love Keynes . It seems Sunak does, going by short record so far.
Viewed through a political / sovereignty lens the argument for Brexit is on a stronger footing.
Yes, of course. The point is that Keynesian macro and appropriate tax policies are a much better policy response than austerity can ever be.
The UK has the advantage of printing its own currency so it can engage in monetary financing if the situation warrants it; an option not available to Euro economies.
> I have my serious doubts. Spending large amounts of money wisely or blowing it wildly can look the same (HS2?) but the outcome is different.
Austerity takes money out of a contracting economy making the situation worse, creating a vicious cycle, and whats worse hollowing out govt services (NHS, policing, education). Austerity is dangerous on a number of levels.
> Is this any different from a person getting indebted on a credit card? Honest question.
Yes, its completely different. Debt creates a liability, it needs to be paid back.
Monetary financing - aka helicopter money - is precisely the opposite.
The central bank "prints" money: it can be credited to the govt's account, or the CB can directly credit household bank accounts with money created from thin air. No new liabilities are created.
The problems with monetary financing is that it can get addictive; its use outside of situations of extreme economic distress is the biggest risk with its use.
I dunno about austerity. Seems the way it was done in the uk was wrong in that most of the weight fell on the poorest.
Your description of helicopter money sounds wrong - if it's so great why not do it more often. Inflationary at the very least. There have to be liabilities to it. It doesn't add up, do you have any references? TIA
> Your description of helicopter money sounds wrong - if it's so great why not do it more often.
Because it undermines CB policy and leads to hyper inflation and ruining the economy. Some CBs are legally proscribed from engaging in helicopter money for good reason.
> There have to be liabilities to it.
You mean balance sheet liabilities? None. The money is recorded as an asset "receivable" on CB balance sheet.
It does add up :D Japan has been doing it for a decade (for the wrong reasons unfortunately).
For layman overview; most mainstream financial news sites like the FT and Bloomberg do a good job:
As for "court jurisdiction and supremacy of parliament", given the way the government has abused its powers at times, I'd like a higher court than the UK one.
BTW I did raise a question illegality by the UK government with the EU. Stuff started to get done. The UK government's standard brush-off to being challenged on something they don't want to answer to, is "it's not in the public interest". Which is bullshit.
If the UK government wasn't so tossy and incompetent, I might be a lot more sympathetic to "court jurisdiction and supremacy of parliament"
Just take a look at the EU's fisheries position which is basically the status quo as if the UK had never left the EU.
Which is crazy; either the UK has left the EU and so cannot enjoy the same market access as a member, and the EU correspondingly has reduced access to UK market, or else there is full access for both parties.
The EU fisheries position is simply that the UK gets no special favours. The problem the UK faces is that the fish they catch are varieties that are mostly sold to European markets because UK consumers don't want them. Now they want the benefits of their own fisheries policy and to somehow magically get free access to the EU market to sell those fish they catch.
Oh, and a large chunk of the fishing rights to those waters were sold by UK fishermen to EU fishermen several decades ago.
Under EU law, 20% of a country territorial water have to be use as a "fish recovery area", essentially no-fish zone to help the stocks regenerate.
This worked well in the North Sea, but it seems that those zone are not respected at all by English Fishermen in the English Channel (i only have anecdata from partisan fishermen so take this with a grain of salt).
The Bretons think the french coastal police only prohibit French nationnals to fish in protected waters and do nothing about English fishermen, and this is causing ressentment. Most fishes they catch in the english channel are not consummed by the UK but sold to French consummers anyway, and this is not really helping (also the support for free market is dropping real fast around here).
The opinion in britanny right now about fish is "please no deal!" Most of them don't care if the access to UK waters is cut: they know that if the English channel fisheries can't sell in France, they will soon start to sell access to those waters.
Tbh, i'm starting to think this is the best long-term solution. Either we lose something big and we will be renegotiating terms shortly after, causing short-term losses but long-term gains, or nothing of importance really happens economically and everyone is happy.
